AeriaGloria

Is there a time to look? All I can see about video for HUD is it went down to 30 kmh

What sort of maneuvers? The real MiG-29 does have problems with oscillations between around 4 km and 8 km altitude

Reading a KOLS manual for a future video I’m planning, it says “ Ensures reduction photodiode temperature to 70-80°C. .” I don’t know if it means -70-80° total or just below ambient

Yes, videos and tacview will do little to help ED correct this. The more track files the better. I recommend doing your tracks with you 5 degrees below target or more so target cannot really notch you, therefore only guidance deficiencies of the R-27R/ER will be seen.

We also must not confuse the Beryuza datalink with the Beryoza (Birch) SPO as well. What we need is more MiG-29 pilots to definitively describe their experience using the SPO with the radar. If one does not make a difference for ED, perhaps we need multiple.

Is it possible to get this investigated? It is probably the most wanted feature of SPO-10, and it seems per the changelog work has already gone into implementing it it just somehow did not make it into the game. If other redfor modules are made someday with SPO-10, it’s especially important.

Thank you! I am confused here, is the 780 in this chart not for radius of turn in meters with military power at 600 kmh, 4.2 G sustained with 11.3 deg AOA? With the speed figures only in 500/600/709/800/900 kmh? We have an investigating tag everyone, so I think we got ED to take a look at it.

It makes me wonder how OLS-27 works, as Su-27 gets much more range from its IRST with reportedly 15 km head on and 50 km rear detection for F-15 type target (Su-15). I wonder if perhaps it uses nitrogen or still peltier cooling, and I’m sure it uses InSb instead of PbSe

How interesting, thank you. I assume the electric current is partly why palladium was needed

Ah thank you

If it is a preliminary 1982 manual that is the one with the phrase “ When the radar is switched on for emission, it is not possible to use the information from the SPO-15LM indicator due to its erroneous nature and, in some cases, chaos/При включении РЛПК на излучение использовать информацию с индикатора СПО-15ЛМ не представляется возможным ввиду ее ошибочности, а в ряде случаев и хаотичности.“ That is incredibly interesting piece of information……..

I wonder what they meant then “The thermal homing head has two photodetectors: one is deeply cooled to a temperature of -360°C, and the other is uncooled.”

I am just repeating what is said in MiG-29 manuals. Perhaps it meant 360 degrees below ambient.

Well to be more specific, the KOLS head is cooled, Peltier cooled. However PbSe has a limit to how much it can be cooled, and if it’s like the R-60M seeker which is also a Peltier cooled PbSe seeker, it is likely cooled only to 40° C below ambient. However the R-27T/ET 36T seeker is cooled by nitrogen to -360° Celsius, so both are cooled. But 36T cooled to a much higher degree from the nitrogen and InSb working so well at such low temperatures.

I’ll try and do your test at 100m.

The KOLS head itself is about the size of the R-27T/ET seeker head, but behind that opaque cover I would bet the actual mirror of the R-27T/ET is smaller and collects less light. However, like R-73, I would bet the cross seeker of the R-27T/ET is InSb sensor material. While KOLS 14 element seeker is using worse PbSe (same sensor material as R-60M, but of course much larger material and more sensor elements using a cross type seeker arrangement). Brochures for R-27T/ET give a 15 km head on range and 70 km rear aspect range against an “average target,” which I would assume to be tested against Su-15 (as for Su-27 material when they reference F-15 type IR target the actual test was done against Su-15). I might test, but I would bet R-27T/ET is superior on all situations. R-73 on other hand has charts that were also tested against Su-15 and show much shorter ranges then we see with KOLS in DCS. I would bet its seeker is also InSb, and it also uses a cross type seeker. But by virtue of being smaller must just not be able to compete with the much larger 14 element PbSe seeker of the MiG-29 (14 element in search, 6 in tracking though). Thing is PbSe and InSb also see different wavelengths, it is assumed that InSb is much better at seeing a heated up airframe and thus better front aspect, while PbSe mostly looks for engine plume, and thus is much worse at front aspect and primarily good for side and rear aspect. In this brochure. 36T is original R-27T/ET seeker. While it gives 15 km for front aspect, similar brochures gives 10-12 km for R-73, which if we compare to a chart for its seeker, is quite very optimistic I know someone online who was able to scan German documents in an archive that also has a 360 degree graph of R-60 seeker acquisition, which gives a very good idea of the head on/side/rear aspect abilities of PbSe. In that graph, R-60 does about 1.3 km head on, 1.6 km side on, and 4.4 km rear aspect. For AB its front 2.4 km, side 3.2 km, and rear beyond ballistic range. So you can see this is far below KOLS Fun fact, IRST sensor is exactly like radar in that it only needs to move 50% of the angle needed. So to look 30 degrees in one direction, both sensors only tilt the mirror/antenna 15 degrees since both are “cassegrain” type sensors.

I am not terribly surprised, though I am not so good at testing sustained rate vs instaneous. I will say from my testing your results sound on the money of about 0.5 G difference. I will see if I can definitively test it. My only question for you is where you got 500m as the charts seem to usually go 0m/3 km/5km. It should atleast come pretty close to the chart no? We are not coming close to AOA limiter here. According to “practical aerodynamics (MiG-29)” the G behavior we see here Where it pulls 9 G below Mach 0.85, then G decreases significantly to Mach 1-1.2 and then increases, is entirely due to the center of pressure moving back from transonic effects and the elevator losing efficiency/leverage as the airframe becomes more stable essentially.

Hello, I did some IRST testing. And Welp, it’s true the IRST is not very good F-15/F-14 Head on-12 km, 24 km AB Side: 16 km, 36 km AB Rear: 20 km, AB, 42 km AB F-4 slightly higher in Mil F-18 Head on: 10 km. 22 km AB Side: 14 km, 30 km AB Rear: 19 km, 40 km AB F-16 Head on: 10 km, 18 km AB Side: 13 km, 29 km AB Rear: 17 km, 35 km AB

Hello, before the FM change for the MiG-29 FF, this maneuver was pretty easy, a hammerhead turn described from a western pilot who had a flight in MiG-29 by Menitsky shortly after the end of the Cold War. I remember this maneuver working really well, but it seems now the roll in the same direction as yaw is too powerful. I know this is related to or a direct cause of too strong of Lateral stability, so perhaps lateral stability is too high. Perhaps this has some knock on effect such as on the autopilot oscillations that are occurring. And perhaps my piloting is just not as good and someone else can do it much better than me. I thought to atleast mention while the autopilot oscillations are being worked on Description of the maneuver “ At 500 km/hr (270 kts) indicated, I began a 4-g pull and continued bringing the nose up until the aircraft reached an 80-deg pitch atti-tude, at which point Menitskii said "stop" (which is Russian for "stop"). I then held that nose position without changing the throttle setting and let the airspeed decay to around 250 km/hr (135 kts), at which time I briskly applied full left rudder and enough opposite aileron to keep the outside wing from picking up as it generated extra lift in the yaw. I could feel Menitskii on the controls with me intermittently throughout the maneuver. The nose of the aircraft carved an effortless arc around the yaw axis during the float from right to left as the airspeed continued to bleed off, reaching a low of around 100 km/hr (54 kts) at the apex of the reversal. I felt in full control of the MiG-29 throughout this maneuver and could vary the yaw rate by playing the amount of rudder input. By this time, I could see enough of a horizon to complete the maneuver symmetrically using outside visual refer-ences. I allowed the nose to fall through as we headed back downhill, left the power where it had been set at the time of entry, and executed a 4-g pull to a wings-level recovery on a reciprocal heading,” MiG-29hammerhead.trk

Okay here I focused on a slightly different aspect, the dip in G shown by the instantaneous chart at 0.85-1.1 Mach. This track should show whether at 0 km, 3 km, or 5 km, it is pulling too much G at Mach 0.85-1.1. I know that tuning a FM is often a “balance,” and that this may have to do with it often barely or not even pulling 9 G instantaneous at say 0.8-0.85 G at lower altitudes such as 1000-2000m which I demonstrated with the first track. In the “MiG-299G” track I instead tried to focus on the speeds it can hit 9 G from 0-3000m. Knowing per the chart it should hit 9 G at 0m from 0.55-0.85 Mach and 0.65-0.85 Mach at 3 km, I would say that the window it hits 9 G is just too narrow. Instead of hitting 9 G at Mach 0.85 or right around it, I would routinely have a huge jump to 9 G and over at around 0.8 Mach. It would then stay at 9G or over until perhaps about 0.05 Mach above where the chart said it would maintain it. So overall I would say it hits 9 G at too narrow of a speed below 0.85 Mach, and can hit too high of a G from 0.85-1.1 Mach. Granted, the behavior is much more accurate and superior then it was before the FM was adjusted for FF release (which debuted with the FC3 module the patch before the MiG-29 FF release), I just think it needs a little extra touch to reach the DCS standard. MiG-29goverload2.trk MiG-299G.trk

I didn’t expect the categories to be much trouble, I think the main thing with the categories is exactly what we saw above, being confused with the original FC3 categories. In which case, it’s simply a matter of time for people to get used to it, as well as the fact that by not having the frequency range to cover the EWR/AWACs categories of the original FC3 SPO. The newer/realistic categories also help you learn a lot about radars in general, getting pulse and CWI signals when a 3rd gen guides a fox 1. HPRF signals confused as CW signals at long range. As well as extra features, for example being able to tell if a F-15/16/18 is close or far away simply by seeing if you have a flashing X or an “F” symbol. Other inaccuracies are similar, for example the elevation lights will only trigger at short/medium range, but that also tells you something about the contact. You have a flashing light that estimates missile range from SAMs, and if aircraft are confused as SAMs ( the aforementioned case of flashing X) you also get an estimated missile range. It won’t always be correct, but with some practice you can begin to learn how dangerously close you are by checking category, signal strength, and where the flashing signal strength bar is. For example with F-15/18, the flashing bar is around 45-50 km, which is close to a long range sparrow shot. Both will show F category within 20-25 km, giving you an indication of “I should either be in attack position or running.” The signal strength bar amount is now exponential compared to linear, but again with practice you will soon realize what is danger close. Things I would consider significant weakness compared to FC3 is that it shows you being in the notch in an unconventional way (50 and 90 light together) and only at WVR ranges. You could make the argument however that teaches better and more realistic habits of using EWR for your notch angle, as well as telling you if you get these 50/90 lights together, the enemy is danger close. Once you get the hang of it, I feel the only true weakness becomes not showing launch and not working with radar. Of course YMMV, but I would implore that it even took us time to fully understand original SPO-15, and understanding this one may take longer but be more rewarding and often give you more information then the original that only showed “P” and one light for every fighter at every range.

With more testing here is what I can tell. At 0m, it matches charts well At 3 and 5 km, it also matches charts well However, the main issue is something we don’t exactly have charts for, which is the region from above 0-2 km, more specifically around 0.5-2 km. I think one thing going on here is that ARU begins is at its smallest amount of deflection from 870-1200 kmh between 0-2 km. Above 2 km, it begins to increase deflection again. At 0 km, it is just enough authority to match the charts well. However once we raise altitude between 0 and 2 km, the authority is not enough the slightly thinner air. What surprises me most is how big the difference is, at 0 m it has little issue often pulling more then 10 G, and hitting 9 G over a significant range. At say 1-2 km, it will almost never go over 9 G, hitting 9 G at a very narrow range of speeds (920-940 kmh) if that, and often being limited to 8-8.5 G or less at 1-2 km between 870 kmh and Mach 0.85. The instantaneous G chart indicates it has no problem hitting 9 G at 0 km from 0.55-0.85 M, at 3 km at 0.65-0.85 M, and 0.75-0.85 M at 5 km, which gives the impression it should atleast have no problem hitting 9 G at say 0.5-2 km from perhaps 0.6-0.85 Mach, which is not the case in game. I am very surprised if 500-2000m is enough to make that much of a difference.

As mentioned, this is for old an incorrect FC3 SPO. On our more realistic FF SPO, if you reference the manual it will explain the categories 1. there is no EWR/AWACS category as they are outside frequency range. This category is actually for pulse radars 2. Most pulse Doppler 4th gen jets will be confused as a low power MRSAM/Hawk at long range. To show that it sees a low power Hawk, SPO will show flashing X. When the 4th gen gets closer, it will be properly identified as F, but still show flashing X. 3. There is no launch warning in DCS as SPO-15 only does this for Nike Hercules. Some pulse radars will only show P when launching Fox 1 as P is for CW Illumination, but this isn’t always the case 4. F-14 is the one exception among pulse Doppler radars as it functions differently, in which case it will show X at long range and P+X categories when within about 60 km as P is just for the CWI of Fox 1 guidance, which is often left on in F-14. The manual will explain much more

Hello, I’ve been testing the new SPO-10, and I do love the physics based approach of the newer SPO-10 and SPO-15! However, it does seem to be missing one function from the changelog. Hopefully, this function was simply not added to the build. “At high signal power level, particularly against slow-scanning radars you will see the effect of side lobes passing over (either multiple pings, or visible gradual increase and then drop in power level as evidenced by additional sectors lighting up and dropping while the sector closest to source stays lit).” If this is modeled and I simply do not see it, please let me know how I can see it. Here are two tracks one of high and one of low closure SPO10lowclosure.trk SPO10high closure.trk

According to flight manual, the maximum permissible speed of releasing the chute is 310 kmh, so this may be a bug